Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Amy Gale,
My reaction to this is the same as to the requirement that I carry my immigration paper work at all times: no WAY are the most important pieces of paper in my life leaving their safe homes except when absolutely necessary.
I'm paranoid enough that I have two photocopies of all our immigration documents at home stored separately from the originals and each other, one with each set of parents back in NZ, one with Fulbright, and one with the university's international office. And scanned copies.
(The US immigration people scare me, OK?)
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Lilith __,
It really puzzles me why a people living in such a madly cold, windy and inclement climate didn't wear TROUSERS! Or does the icy draught up your kilt keep you fierce?
As I understand it, the kilt as known in the modern day was never really worn that way: c.f. this picture from the eighteenth century of the predecessor to the modern kilt, where they're clearly wearing some sort of leggings.
Or, you know, it's because Scotsmen are just that stoic. I'm not one to get in the way of a good story.
(Fine, I totally am.)
-
Hard News: The Engagement, in reply to David Hood,
Kills or Wait
or Wilt
In a traditional PAS thread-merger: Kilt, obviously.
*the one that excludes Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England, of course.
Naturally. They were boring, and that's a capital sin when you're five. (Plus, Jean Plaidy never wrote any historical novels about them.)
-
The question is: are you really ready for the coming frenzy? And if not, hadn’t you better be booking that desert island?
Not asking for a desert island, just for the teensiest bit of perspective. I'm looking at you, Stuff.
(And, you know, I say this as someone who once memorised the entire list of British monarchs since Edward the Confessor. I get the monarchy thing. I just don't think it's more important than a serious threat to a major industry. Blessedly, the Herald agrees with me.)
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Danielle,
because they were requiring actual proof of your Social Security Number for various things. (I never even had a Social Security Number until I was in my 20s, but our son had to apply for one with his passport.) It’s all quite wacky.
Stop, you'll make me cry. I've already had enough "I don't have, and am not legally allowed to have, an SSN" conversations to last a lifetime.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to dyan campbell,
How times change… the era I was describing (1985) was many years before security was observed domestically (as North Americans traveling within North America were classified)
Dude, that was before I was born. Before I was conceived, even. Clearly doesn’t count ;)
Maybe that weird attitude towards women here is why once, at a party here, a guy actually reached out and grabbed one of my breasts and said “OOOrrr, that Paul, he’s a lucky man” and then had the gall to be offended when I dislodged his hand with a windmill movement, intended to startle, if not injure
Or maybe that guy was just an asshole? Because this is seriously not acceptable behaviour in any circles I have ever been in, ever.
-
Nowadays that would be different, I’m sure.
As an international student living not too awfully far from the Canadian border, I've been advised to carry all my immigration documentation if I venture within a hundred miles of the border, literally - which doesn't involve going very far from where I live at all, maybe an hour's drive - because roving Immigration agents patrol up to a hundred miles into American territory, and if you take a Saturday morning drive into Vermont to see the leaves sans documents, you could spend a long and uncomfortable weekend in detention before everyone arrives back at work on Monday and the university can confirm your legal status.
They just go out of their way to make you feel welcome here, don't you agree?
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Jolisa,
Struggling to see the flaw in my cunning plan…
Most of the people who need placating don't seem to remember gay teenagers exist?
-
Obviously pondering how best to repress all teenagers makes everything so much hotter!
Effectively repressing sexual behaviour requires so much more consideration of its details and potential outlets, until everything becomes hyper-sexualised and hand-holding is one step away from fornication. Considered outside the social consequences, it's almost elegant.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Just thinking,
Tess holds more conservative views than most here & her greatest sin seems to be being overly familiar with the inner workings of KAOS.
I think Deborah's expressing some understandable frustration at having gone round the merry-go-round several times with the same tactics on display.
We've gone nine pages here and Tess's argument still boils down to "short skirts lead to sex, teenagers having sex is bad, therefore short skirts are bad" without any actual attempt to prove either of the first two assertions, though a nice side-order of "and I had sex as a teenager and I regret it, so everyone else will, too!". It still comes down, in the end, to a wish to judge women on their sexual behaviour, and an assumption that their dress says something about that behaviour: but this is labeled "concern". Hence the frustration.